The cognitive cost of AI: Balancing assistance and awareness

The double-edged sword of AI assistance

The rapid integration of AI tools like ChatGPT into daily life has transformed how we write, think, and communicate. AI has become a ubiquitous companion, helping students with essays and professionals streamline emails.

However, a new study by MIT raises a crucial red flag: excessive reliance on AI may come at the cost of our own mental sharpness. Researchers discovered that frequent ChatGPT users showed significantly lower brain activity, particularly in areas tied to critical thinking and creativity.

The study introduces a concept dubbed ‘cognitive debt,’ a reminder that while AI offers convenience, it may undermine our cognitive resilience if not used responsibly.

MIT’s method: How the study was conducted

The MIT Media Lab study involved 54 participants split into three groups: one used ChatGPT, another used traditional search engines, and the third completed tasks unaided. Participants were assigned writing exercises over multiple sessions while their brain activity was tracked using electroencephalography (EEG).

That method allowed scientists to measure changes in alpha and beta waves, indicators of mental effort. The findings revealed a striking pattern: those who depended on ChatGPT demonstrated the lowest brain activity, especially in the frontal cortex, where high-level reasoning and creativity originate.

Diminished mental engagement and memory recall

One of the most alarming outcomes of the study was the cognitive disengagement observed in AI users. Not only did they show reduced brainwave activity, but they also struggled with short-term memory.

Many could not recall what they had written just minutes earlier because the AI had done most of the cognitive heavy lifting. This detachment from the creative process meant that users were no longer actively constructing ideas or arguments but passively accepting the machine-generated output.

The result? A diminished sense of authorship and ownership over one’s own work.

Homogenised output: The erosion of creativity

The study also noted a tendency for AI-generated content to appear more uniform and less original. While ChatGPT can produce grammatically sound and coherent text, it often lacks the personal flair, nuance, and originality that come from genuine human expression.

Essays written with AI assistance were found to be more homogenised, lacking distinct voice and perspective. This raises concerns, especially in academic and creative fields, where originality and critical thinking are fundamental.

The overuse of AI could subtly condition users to accept ‘good enough’ content, weakening their creative instincts over time.

The concept of cognitive debt

‘Cognitive debt’ refers to the mental atrophy that can result from outsourcing too much thinking to AI. Like financial debt, this form of cognitive laziness builds over time and eventually demands repayment, often in the form of diminished skills when the tool is no longer available.

Typing

Participants who became accustomed to using AI found it more challenging to write without it later on. The reliance suggests that continuous use without active mental engagement can erode our capacity to think deeply, form complex arguments, and solve problems independently.

A glimmer of hope: Responsible AI use

Despite these findings, the study offers hope. Participants who started tasks without AI and only later integrated it showed significantly better cognitive performance.

That implies that when AI is used as a complementary tool rather than a replacement, it can support learning and enhance productivity. By encouraging users to first engage with the problem and then use AI to refine or expand their ideas, we can strike a healthy balance between efficiency and mental effort.

Rather than abstinence, responsible usage is the key to retaining our cognitive edge.

Use it or lose it

The MIT study underscores a critical reality of our AI-driven era: while tools like ChatGPT can boost productivity, they must not become a substitute for thinking itself. Overreliance risks weakening the faculties defining human intelligence—creativity, reasoning, and memory.

The challenge in the future is to embrace AI mindfully, ensuring that we remain active participants in the cognitive process. If we treat AI as a partner rather than a crutch, we can unlock its full potential without sacrificing our own.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI governance debated at IGF 2025: Global cooperation meets local needs

At the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 in Norway, an expert panel convened to examine the growing complexity of artificial intelligence governance. The discussion, moderated by Kathleen Ziemann from the German development agency GIZ and Guilherme Canela of UNESCO, featured a rich exchange between government officials, private sector leaders, civil society voices, and multilateral organisations.

The session highlighted how AI governance is becoming a crowded yet fragmented space, shaped by overlapping frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles, the EU AI Act, UNESCO’s recommendations on AI ethics, and various national and regional strategies. While these efforts reflect progress, they also pose challenges in terms of coordination, coherence, and inclusivity.

IGF session highlights urgent need for democratic resilience online

Melinda Claybaugh, Director of Privacy Policy at Meta, noted the abundance of governance initiatives but warned of disagreements over how AI risks should be measured. ‘We’re at an inflection point,’ she said, calling for more balanced conversations that include not just safety concerns but also the benefits and opportunities AI brings. She argued for transparency in risk assessments and suggested that existing regulatory structures could be adapted to new technologies rather than replaced.

In response, Jhalak Kakkar, Executive Director at India’s Centre for Communication Governance, urged caution against what she termed a ‘false dichotomy’ between innovation and regulation. ‘We need to start building governance from the beginning, not after harms appear,’ she stressed, calling for socio-technical impact assessments and meaningful civil society participation. Kakkar advocated for multi-stakeholder governance that moves beyond formality to real influence.

Mlindi Mashologu, Deputy Director-General at South Africa’s Ministry of Communications and Digital Technology, highlighted the importance of context-aware regulation. ‘There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to AI,’ he said. Mashologu outlined South Africa’s efforts through its G20 presidency to reduce AI-driven inequality via a new policy toolkit, stressing human rights, data justice, and environmental sustainability as core principles. He also called for capacity-building to enable the Global South to shape its own AI future.

Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of the Diplo Foundation, brought a philosophical lens to the discussion, questioning the dominance of ‘data’ in governance frameworks. ‘AI is fundamentally about knowledge, not just data,’ he argued. Kurbalija warned against the monopolisation of human knowledge and advocated for stronger safeguards to ensure fair attribution and decentralisation.

 Crowd, Person, People, Press Conference, Adult, Male, Man, Face, Head, Electrical Device, Microphone, Clothing, Formal Wear, Suit, Audience

The need for transparency, explainability, and inclusive governance remained central themes. Participants explored whether traditional laws—on privacy, competition, and intellectual property—are sufficient or whether new instruments are needed to address AI’s novel challenges.

Audience members added urgency to the discussion. Anna from Mexican digital rights group R3D raised concerns about AI’s environmental toll and extractive infrastructure practices in the Global South. Pilar Rodriguez, youth coordinator for the IGF in Spain, questioned how AI governance could avoid fragmentation while still respecting regional sovereignty.

The session concluded with a call for common-sense, human-centric AI governance. ‘Let’s demystify AI—but still enjoy its magic,’ said Kurbalija, reflecting the spirit of hopeful realism that permeated the discussion. Panelists agreed that while many AI risks remain unclear, global collaboration rooted in human rights, transparency, and local empowerment offers the most promising path forward.

Track all key moments from the Internet Governance Forum 2025 on our dedicated IGF page.

Yoga in the age of AI: Digital spirituality or algorithmic escapism?

Since 2015, 21 June marks the International Day of Yoga, celebrating the ancient Indian practice that blends physical movement, breathing, and meditation. But as the world becomes increasingly digital, yoga itself is evolving.

No longer limited to ashrams or studios, yoga today exists on mobile apps, YouTube channels, and even in virtual reality. On the surface, this democratisation seems like a triumph. But what are the more profound implications of digitising a deeply spiritual and embodied tradition? And how do emerging technologies, particularly AI, reshape how we understand and experience yoga in a hyper-connected world?

Tech and wellness: The rise of AI-driven yoga tools

The wellness tech market has exploded, and yoga is a major beneficiary. Apps like Down Dog, YogaGo, and Glo offer personalised yoga sessions, while wearables such as the Apple Watch or Fitbit track heart rate and breathing.

Meanwhile, AI-powered platforms can generate tailored yoga routines based on user preferences, injury history, or biometric feedback. For example, AI motion tracking tools can evaluate your poses in real-time, offering corrections much like a human instructor.

Yoga app

While these tools increase accessibility, they also raise questions about data privacy, consent, and the commodification of spiritual practices. What happens when biometric data from yoga sessions is monetised? Who owns your breath and posture data? These questions sit at the intersection of AI ethics and digital rights.

Beyond the mat: Virtual reality and immersive yoga

The emergence of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) is pushing the boundaries of yoga practice. Platforms like TRIPP or Supernatural offer immersive wellness environments where users can perform guided meditation and yoga in surreal, digitally rendered landscapes.

These tools promise enhanced focus and escapism—but also risk detachment from embodied experience. Does VR yoga deepen the meditative state, or does it dilute the tradition by gamifying it? As these technologies grow in sophistication, we must question how presence, environment, and embodiment translate in virtual spaces.

Can AI be a guru? Empathy, authority, and the limits of automation

One provocative question is whether AI can serve as a spiritual guide. AI instructors—whether through chatbots or embodied in VR—may be able to correct your form or suggest breathing techniques. But can they foster the deep, transformative relationship that many associate with traditional yoga masters?

Yoga

AI lacks emotional intuition, moral responsibility, and cultural embeddedness. While it can mimic the language and movements of yoga, it struggles to replicate the teacher-student connection that grounds authentic practice. As AI becomes more integrated into wellness platforms, we must ask: where do we draw the line between assistance and appropriation?

Community, loneliness, and digital yoga tribes

Yoga has always been more than individual practice—community is central. Yet, as yoga moves online, questions of connection and belonging arise. Can digital communities built on hashtags and video streams replicate the support and accountability of physical sanghas (spiritual communities)?

Paradoxically, while digital yoga connects millions, it may also contribute to isolation. A solitary practice in front of a screen lacks the energy, feedback, and spontaneity of group practice. For tech developers and wellness advocates, the challenge is to reimagine digital spaces that foster authentic community rather than algorithmic echo chambers.

Digital policy and the politics of platformised spirituality

Beyond the individual experience, there’s a broader question of how yoga operates within global digital ecosystems. Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok have turned yoga into shareable content, often stripped of its philosophical and spiritual roots.

Meanwhile, Big Tech companies capitalise on wellness trends while contributing to stress-inducing algorithmic environments. There are also geopolitical and cultural considerations.

Yoga

The export of yoga through Western tech platforms often sidesteps its South Asian origins, raising issues of cultural appropriation. From a policy perspective, regulators must grapple with how spiritual practices are commodified, surveilled, and reshaped by AI-driven infrastructures.

Toward inclusive and ethical design in wellness tech

As AI and digital tools become more deeply embedded in yoga practice, there is a pressing need for ethical design. Developers should consider how their platforms accommodate different bodies, abilities, cultures, and languages. For example, how can AI be trained to recognise non-normative movement patterns? Are apps accessible to users with disabilities?

Inclusive design is not only a matter of social justice—it also aligns with yogic principles of compassion, awareness, and non-harm. Embedding these values into AI development can help ensure that the future of yoga tech is as mindful as the practice it seeks to support.

Toward a mindful tech future

As we celebrate International Day of Yoga, we are called to reflect not only on the practice itself but also on its evolving digital context. Emerging technologies offer powerful tools for access and personalisation, but they also risk diluting the depth and ethics of yoga.

Yoga

For policymakers, technologists, and practitioners alike, the challenge is to ensure that yoga in the digital age remains a practice of liberation rather than a product of algorithmic control. Yoga teaches awareness, balance, and presence. These are the very qualities we need to shape responsible digital policies in an AI-driven world.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Breaking down the OEWG’s legacy: Hits, misses, and unfinished business

What is the OEWG?

The open-ended working groups (OEWGs) are a type of format present in the UN that is typically considered the most open, as the name suggests. It means that all UN member and observer states, intergovernmental organisations, and non-governmental organisations with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) consultative status may attend public meetings of the working group. Yet, decisions are made by the UN member states.  There are various OEWGs at the UN. Here, we are addressing the one dealing with cybersecurity.

What does the OEWG on cybersecurity do? In plain language, it tries to find more common ground on what is allowed and what is not in cyberspace, and how to ensure adherence to these rules. In the UN language, the Cyber OEWG was mandated to ‘continue to develop the rules, norms, and principles of responsible behaviour of states, discuss ways for their implementation, and to study the possibility of establishing regular institutional dialogue with broad participation under the auspices of the UN.’

How was the OEWG organised? The OEWG was organised around an organisational session that discussed procedures and modus operandi, and substantive ones dealing with the matter, as well as intersessional meetings and town halls supplementing the discussions. The OEWG held 10 substantive sessions during its 5-year mandate, with the 11th and final session just around the corner in July 2025, where the group will adopt its Final report.


The OEWG through expert eyes: Achievements, shortfalls, and future goals

As the OEWG 2019–2025 process nears its conclusion, we spoke with cybersecurity experts to reflect on its impact and look ahead. Their insights address four key questions: (1) the OEWG’s most substantive contributions and shortcomings in global ICT security; (2) priorities for future dialogues on responsible state behavior in cyberspace; (3) the feasibility of consensus on a permanent multilateral mechanism; and (4) the potential relevance of such a mechanism in today’s divisive geopolitical climate. Their perspectives shed light on what the OEWG has achieved—and the challenges still facing international cyber governance.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Blazer, Clothing, Coat, Jacket, Happy, Smile, Formal Wear, Suit, Body Part, Neck
Katherine Getao, Senior Research Fellow, DiploFoundation

The OEWG, as intended by its designers during the 2017 UNGGE process, has enabled broad, inclusive, voluntary participation in global cybersecurity policy discussions. Countries from all continents have chosen to participate and have gained a better understanding of state actions necessary to protect global peace and security in and through ICTs. The OEWG has enabled global agenda-setting, e.g. through the widespread adoption of a framework of action commitment to establish points of contact, it has stimulated and galvanised regional ICT and cybersecurity processes such as joint capacity-building, development of protocols, etc., examples being (in Africa) activities at the AU headquarters as well as RECs, notably ECOWAS. The OEWG also enables countries that are new to the domain to learn and build useful networks.

Read more

That said, the global picture for ICT security is still very uncertain and risky. ICT security involves what I term the “Robin Hood” effect, where the ingenuity and intelligence enabled by ICT can have equalising effects in conflicts between technologically advanced and weaker states. Whether the multilateral policy discussions and broad agreements have in any way tempered conflicts about or involving ICTs remains to be seen. My other observation about the OEWG is that by broadening the stakeholders, the agenda and content of the discussions and documents have grown and lack some of the coherence enjoyed by the UNGGE outcomes.

Regarding the agenda, I think the broad sections: emerging threats, norms, CBMs, international law, capacity building, way forward – are still relevant, but global current evènts are demonstrating that new issues will inevitably arise under these headings. My concern is more about process than agenda. Given the rapidly changing global environment, the agenda should remain fluid. I would suggest three  process additions:

  • Have an academic track, both to ensure that emerging issues and technologies are discussed as early as possible and to orient the emerging generation towards the norms, policies and laws. This could involve selected academic researchers, centres of excellence, online courses etc.
  • Insert the issue into ongoing ICT processes, maybe by having a ‘school’ or other type of side event to help participants correlate the issues they are already discussing with emerging global ICT peace and security policy, given that it is a cross-cutting issue.
  • Responsible states emerge from responsible leaders. The OEWG is now mature enough to seek national and regional champions of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. Inserting this issue into the postures and statements of global opinion leaders would hopefully influence the behaviour of states.

States probably could reach consensus on the structure and function of a future permanent mechanism because, apart from the concerns about resourcing, building an institution is often an attractive, visible ‘quick win.’ In my view, however, I would not support the establishment of a purely policy-making institution in such a fluid, complex and practical field. Suitable institutions might be developed or supported in suitable implementation areas.

I think it is too early to develop a permanent mechanism. A 5-year (for example) revolving process approval would give some stability while remaining flexible and needs-based

 Accessories, Formal Wear, Tie, Clothing, Suit, Necktie, Adult, Male, Man, Person, Coat, Face, Head, Photography, Portrait, Blazer, Jacket, Shirt, Žan Tabak
Nemanja Malisevic, Senior Director of Digital Diplomacy, Microsoft

The Open-Ended Working Group’s most substantive contribution is its role in encouraging states to articulate national and regional positions on the application of international law in cyberspace. Over 30 countries, along with the African Union and EU, submitted formal positions. This growing body of documented perspectives has helped clarify how states interpret existing legal frameworks in cyberspace—an important step toward building a shared understanding of responsible state behavior online. Despite these positive developments, all things considered, the OEWG has not delivered many tangible outcomes that materially improve global cybersecurity. Key issues such as the cyber mercenary market, coordinated vulnerability disclosure, and the protection of public critical infrastructure remain largely unaddressed. The process has struggled to move beyond dialogue into actionable strategies.

Read more

The consensus-based nature of the OEWG allows a small number of states to block progress. Without genuine cooperation and constructive engagement from all participants, the process risks stagnation. Additionally, the current stakeholder modalities have proven inadequate. For cybersecurity discussions to be effective, they must include a diverse range of voices—technical experts, civil society, and system operators. Unfortunately, the OEWG has not provided a truly inclusive platform for these stakeholders to contribute meaningfully.

To advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace, future efforts may need to move beyond the limitations of the types of processes that we have traditionally seen in this space.  Governments should explore mechanisms that allow for real and tangible progress. Models like the Ottawa Declaration on cluster munitions and the Montreux Document on military contractors—though not directly applicable—offer interesting food for thought in this regard. A future approach should prioritize actionable strategies and more inclusive participation to address urgent cybersecurity challenges.

Whether states can reach consensus on a permanent mechanism for dialogue depends entirely on political will. The current geopolitical climate makes this a challenging prospect, but not an impossible one.  Ideally, such a mechanism would be state-led and permanent, operating on a single-track basis while incorporating meaningful multistakeholder participation. It should be designed not just for dialogue, but for action—equipped with the tools and authority to implement strategies that enhance global cybersecurity in practical, measurable ways.

The relevance and influence of a future permanent mechanism will hinge on its design, ambition and implementation. If it replicates the limitations of the current OEWG—particularly its susceptibility to deadlock and exclusion of key stakeholders—then it is unlikely to achieve meaningful progress. However, if it is action-oriented, inclusive, and strategically focused, it could become a powerful tool for fostering a more secure and stable cyberspace.

 Blonde, Hair, Person, Face, Head, Photography, Portrait, Happy, Smile, Body Part, Neck
Christina Rupp, Senior Policy Researcher Cybersecurity Policy and Resilience, Interface

The Open-ended Working Group 2021-2025 has made a lasting contribution to global discussions on ICT security by broadening participation and providing a platform for smaller delegations and underrepresented states to engage substantively in international discourse on cybersecurity policy. This more inclusive dialogue on responsible behavior in cyberspace has strengthened cross-regional coalition-building, fostered understanding across diverse perspectives, and – as repeatedly emphasized by the Group’s Chair – thus served as a confidence-building measure (CBM) in itself.

Read more

The adoption of three Annual Progress Reports (APRs) by consensus in 2022, 2023, and 2024 amidst a challenging political climate represents a notable achievement in sustaining multilateral dialogue on cybersecurity. These reports also reflect concrete, if modest, progress, including, inter alia, the establishment of a Points of Contact (PoC) directory, agreement on eight global cyber CBMs, and consensus on a comprehensive section addressing existing and potential threats to international peace and security stemming from the use of ICTs. However, translating dialogue into implementation has remained a challenge over the course of the OEWG’s deliberations. Persistent divisions – for example, over prioritizing the implementation of existing commitments versus the elaboration of new norms and referencing discussions on International Humanitarian Law – have limited the Group’s ability to move from consensus language to specific outcomes.

Looking ahead, discussions on cybersecurity in the context of the United Nations First Committee should shift toward operationalizing the existing framework for responsible state behavior. This framework – comprising, inter alia, 11 norms for responsible state behavior, existing international law including the UN Charter, eight global cyber-confidence building measures including the PoC directory, as well as 10 cyber capacity-building principles – offers sufficient tools to do so. What is needed now is to give enhanced meaning to their sometimes abstract language and align them with practical, on-the-ground realities. Bringing in expert briefers and adopting more interactive formats could invigorate discussions and support bridging gaps between technical, legal, political, and diplomatic communities.

Whether states can reach final consensus on the design of a future permanent mechanism on cybersecurity under UN auspices next month remains an open question, particularly given the fragile compromises and last-minute diplomacy that have characterized the final stages of APR negotiations over the past two years. Annex C of the 2024 APR outlines a solid basis of elements of future permanent mechanism, but key issues – particularly concerning dedicated thematic groups and stakeholder modalities – remain unresolved. A successful outcome in July will require both a high level of political will and a willingness to compromise from all states in order to agree on a clear roadmap that avoids duplication and overlaps, fosters deeper dialogue, and enables meaningful stakeholder contributions to support evidence-based policymaking on cybersecurity at the UN level.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Adult, Female, Woman, Blazer, Clothing, Coat, Jacket, Happy, Smile, Blonde, Hair, Body Part, Neck
Yuliya Shlychkova, Vice President, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Kaspersky

In our view, the most significant achievement by the OEWG 2021-2025 was reaching an agreement to set up the Points of Contact Directory. This database serves as an important tool promoting practical international cooperation countering cybersecurity threats, allowing faster information exchange between competent bodies. When reflecting on the work of the OEWG 2021-2025, we would also like to highlight the informal intersessional consultative meetings with stakeholders organized by the Chair of OEWG H.E. Mr. Burhan Gafoor and thank him for his genuine interest in engaging in a direct conversation with a multi-stakeholder community.

Read more

The UN Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security (A/76/135), which was published in 2021, suggested numerous considerations for agenda prioritisation. Among them, issues covered by norms F, G (critical infrastructure protection) and I (supply chain security) could be regarded as particularly important nowadays, as one can observe a constantly growing number of cyberthreats against critical infrastructure as well as supply chains.

We hope that a consensus on the structure and function of a future permanent mechanism for dialogue on ICT-related issues will eventually be reached. We also hope that member states will work out concrete parameters of such mechanism.

During times of geopolitical turbulence, any mechanism, which enables direct dialogue, is of special importance. That is why we believe that a future permanent mechanism would be highly relevant. It would also inherit the reputation of the OEWG as one of the premier platforms for the global dialogue on ICT-related issues. Our view is that, in order to increase its efficiency, the OEWG successor should keep channels of communication with the private sector open, which has vast expertise in the ICT sphere and could make a meaningful contribution to the depth of any future discussion. Their format could vary – for example, it could be similar to aforementioned Chair’s informal intersessional consultative meetings with stakeholders. At the same time, specific measures could be taken in order to make such consultations more relevant and useful for the purposes of a future permanent mechanism – in particular, by dividing all interested non-government stakeholders in thematic groups based on their area of activity, and then inviting them to specific rounds of consultations which are relevant to their expertise.

 Blazer, Clothing, Coat, Jacket, Black Hair, Hair, Person, Adult, Male, Man, Formal Wear, Suit, Head, Kim Tae-yong
Eugene EG Tan,
Associate Research Fellow
Centre of Excellence for National Security
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU)

Most of the OEWG 2021-25 has been conducted under a geopolitical storm, making any agreement to advance the framework on responsible state behaviour in the use of ICTs a hard-won consensus. But even if it seems like an evaluation that the glass is half full, there has been progress. The OEWG has at least three annual progress reports to show for the discussions that has gone on in the group, which is no mean feat considering the geopolitical situation. Any attempt to rollback state commitments made in the previous OEWG and UNGGE has also been met with a vigorous pushback by the majority of states, keeping much of the acquis intact. This is especially important in a time where international law has come under the cosh due to the actions of some states.

Read more

There has however been a substantial change in how discussions at the group has progressed. The longer mandate given to the OEWG has enabled the group to place more emphasis on the implementation of the framework (and reporting back to the framework), rather than being bogged down with the ideological differences that has long stalked the process. I think this action-oriented approach is useful to all stakeholders in the process – states, academics, civil society, and industries – because it enables feedback on which of the norms, capacity building, and confidence building measures have proven effective, and what has been less so. And this should continue into the future permanent mechanism.

How the future permanent mechanism will look like is unclear and would most certainly be a result of political agreement that is UN-acceptable to states and unfortunately minimises the role of non-state stakeholders. Non-state stakeholders will have to accept the modalities that the future mechanism agrees to. But this does not mean that the role of non-state stakeholders should stop or decrease, and it is incumbent on the states that see the value of non-state stakeholder participation to ensure non-state stakeholder voices remain heard and relevant to the discussions on responsible state behaviour. 

The numerous side events held on the sidelines of the OEWG are important in providing states and other stakeholders to deepen discussions and learn from the expertise of other states and stakeholders. This dialogue and knowledge sharing opportunity should be kept alive in the future mechanism in order to prevent the future mechanism from being siloed into a diplomatic endeavour. The future of the stability of cyberspace lies all in the hands of all stakeholders, and it would be richer if all stakeholders were involved in the process – we can only hope that the collective wisdom of all states will prevail at the final session in July.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Blazer, Clothing, Coat, Jacket, Formal Wear, Suit, Accessories, Tie, Happy, Smile, Glasses, Adult, Male, Man, Body Part, Neck, Shirt
Martin Xie, Director of Brussels Cybersecurity Transparency Center, Huawei

The 2021-2025 UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) has served as a pivotal forum for global cyber norms diplomacy, though its legacy remains decidedly mixed. Its most enduring contribution lies in institutionalizing a universal dialogue platform—successfully bringing all UN member states into the conversation while establishing essential trust-building mechanisms, most notably the global Points of Contact directory. This procedural progress has laid a valuable foundation for future international discussions. However, substantial advancements, particularly in developing new norms, often encountered obstacles due to geopolitical tensions, resulting in reaffirmations of existing norms rather than the creation of new commitments. Complex issues, including ransomware and emerging technology norms, remain largely unresolved.

Read more

Moving forward, emphasis should shift from norm-setting to practical implementation and operational cooperation. As cyber threats rapidly evolve—including sophisticated AI-driven incidents, supply chain vulnerabilities, and persistent ransomware—the international community would benefit from actionable measures aimed at mitigating these risks. The technology industry’s practical experience can undoubtedly contribute to this effort. Enhanced public-private cooperation in threat assessment, vulnerability disclosure, and incident response can meaningfully improve global cyber resilience.

The consensus to establish a flexible, Programme of Action (PoA)-style follow-up mechanism post-2025 reflects a pragmatic step towards continuous diplomatic engagement. This mechanism aims to sustain dialogue and build constructively on previous OEWG efforts. Its effectiveness will largely depend on genuine multistakeholder participation, where technical insights are appropriately considered without political bias.

In an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, the mechanism’s most immediate value may be crisis management and maintaining open channels of communication. Its role will likely remain normative, focusing on fostering trust and predictability rather than enforcing norms strictly or attributing responsibility explicitly. For the technology industry, this landscape presents both ongoing compliance complexity and, more significantly, a strategic importance for constructive, collaborative participation in safeguarding the stability and security of our interconnected digital infrastructure.


Topic-by-topic: Diplo’s experts assess OEWG achievements and what comes next

In addition to external cybersecurity experts, we asked our own team—who have tracked the OEWG process since its inception—to share their analysis. They highlight key achievements over the past five years, identify gaps in the discussions, and offer predictions on where debates may lead during the final session and beyond.

Threats
 Weapon, Bow, Gun, Shooting

Over the past five years, the OEWG’s discussions on threats have really grown—not just in length, but in depth. As the threat landscape evolved, so did the conversations. What started as fairly general discussions have now become much more detailed and specific, with nearly a quarter of recent sessions focused on threats alone. That shift shows two things: first, how rapidly cyber risks like ransomware, state-sponsored attacks, and now even AI-driven threats are expanding; and second, that states are getting more comfortable talking openly about these issues.

One standout achievement is how much more states are leaning into cooperation. What’s interesting is that they’re not just naming threats anymore—they’re using just as much time to talk through how to tackle them together. That’s a big deal. We’ve seen more proposals for joint responses, support for capacity-building, and collective action than ever before. It’s a sign that this forum isn’t just about pointing out problems, but about working toward solutions.

There’s also been progress in how states describe and understand threats. In recent sessions, they flagged some new concerns—like the vulnerability of undersea cables and satellite communication networks. That’s a big leap in recognizing the physical infrastructure behind the internet and the risks we might not have talked about much before. States also raised alarms about cyber incidents targeting critical sectors like healthcare, aviation, and energy, and added AI to the mix, with specific concerns about the data used in machine learning and the misuse of AI to power more sophisticated attacks.

All of this points to a maturing conversation. We’re seeing a more layered understanding of threats, which makes space for more tailored, effective responses. And that’s exactly what global cooperation on cybersecurity should be aiming for: staying ahead of the curve, together.

What’s next?

As we head into the final session of the OEWG, expect threat discussions to stay front and centre—more detailed, more action-oriented, and more grounded in real-world risks. That momentum is set to carry into the UN’s future permanent mechanism, which will likely include a dedicated working group on threats. This won’t be just another talk shop. It’s being designed to take a cross-cutting, policy-driven approach—bringing in technical experts and other stakeholders to focus on concrete steps that boost resilience, protect critical infrastructure, and strengthen global stability in cyberspace.

The trend is clear: more specifics, more cooperation, more solutions. Future discussions will be about connecting policy and practice—turning shared concerns into collective action. So while the OEWG chapter might be closing, the real work on threat response is only just beginning.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Body Part, Neck, Happy, Smile, Hairdresser, Haircut

Andrijana Gavrilovic
Head of Policy and Diplomatic Reporting, Diplo

Rules, norms and principles
 Body Part, Hand, Person, Handshake, Animal, Dinosaur, Reptile

The OEWG 2019-2025 established itself as the main space for open and inclusive talks about responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, despite a tough political environment marked by big power rivalries, ongoing conflicts, and deep divisions. One of the key achievements was reconfirming and reinforcing the existing normative framework. States didn’t just reaffirm the 11 voluntary, non-binding norms — they also moved the conversation forward on the Chair’s proposed voluntary Norms Implementation Checklist, This checklist breaks down each norm in more detail, pointing out specific actions countries can take both nationally and internationally. It’s now attached to the Zero Draft of the OEWG Final Report. 

This shift from just setting norms to focusing on how to actually put them into practice is an important step. While the OEWG helped make this shift happen, many countries have already started applying the norms on their own, which shows these principles are becoming more embedded in real-world policies compared to five years ago. Sharing experiences—especially around protecting critical infrastructure and supply chain security—is growing, showing a real push to turn these norms into action. Even though the checklist is still voluntary, most agree it’s a helpful tool for being more transparent, supporting self-checks, and boosting accountability among countries.

Another important role of the OEWG was as a place to openly discuss the future of the normative framework. The group provided a space for countries to talk about whether the current norms are enough or if new, possibly legally binding rules are needed to handle new cyber threats. Although they didn’t reach an agreement on this, the OEWG allowed different views to be shared in a fair and inclusive way, highlighting the need for ongoing dialogue and cooperation.

The OEWG also made progress in setting up a more permanent way to continue this work, while recognising the important role of regional organisations, civil society, and other non-governmental stakeholders. The Zero Draft highlights these contributions and stresses the value of consultations between meetings. Most importantly, it lays the groundwork for a permanent institutional mechanism, showing strong political will to keep international cooperation on cyber norms going beyond 2025.

What’s next?

Looking ahead, the Zero Draft notes that countries are still divided on whether new or legally binding norms are needed. While we don’t expect a final consensus at the closing session, there’s clear support for keeping the conversation going in a structured way. The Chair has suggested creating thematic working groups under a future permanent mechanism. This could be a practical way to move forward, focusing on putting norms into practice while also allowing room to revisit the rules debate in a more focused,  issue-specific context. These groups could be key to driving implementation at national, regional, and sector levels, while also making sure multiple stakeholders can stay involved.

However, in an era where military instruments increasingly shape the resolution of international disputes, to what extent can these peacetime-negotiated UN cyber norms remain relevant and applicable? How can voluntary norms—developed through consensus and intended to promote transparency, restraint, and responsible behaviour—be upheld when geopolitical tensions escalate into open conflict? And how might states, but also stakeholders, continue to apply and interpret these norms to distinguish responsible conduct from destabilising behaviour, even when trust and cooperation are under strain? These questions lie at the heart of ensuring that the normative framework remains a meaningful tool for promoting international stability and accountability—especially when the rules-based order itself is being tested. 

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Happy, Smile, Accessories, Earring, Jewelry, Body Part, Neck, Adult, Female, Woman

Anastasiya Kazakova
Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow, Diplo

International law
 Boat, Transportation, Vehicle, Chandelier, Lamp, Scale

Between 2021 and 2025, the OEWG continued to explore how international law—especially the UN Charter—applies to how states use ICTs. These discussions got more detailed over time, both in substantive and intersessional meetings. One positive trend has been the growing number of national statements on how international law applies in cyberspace. Over 100 countries have now shared their views, along with inputs from other organisations, which helped enrich the debate (see paragraph 40(f) of the Zero Draft). These contributions gave countries a chance to share understandings of how international law applies to cyberspace and of the state responsibilities in the use of ICTs.

States largely agreed on some key legal principles. They reaffirmed that state sovereignty and related international norms and principles still apply when it comes to ICT-related activities. They also confirmed that core principles from the UN Charter—the principle of non-intervention, the prohibition on the threat or use of force, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-intervention—remain valid and relevant in cyberspace.

What’s next?

Looking ahead to the final session, we expect some countries to push for the inclusion of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the Final Report. Even though these two areas were discussed quite a bit during this OEWG cycle, they’re currently missing from the international law section of the Zero Draft. Including them would also help ensure they’re part of the list of issues to be explored in any future discussions under the new permanent mechanism.

That said, one major divide still hasn’t been resolved: should there be a new, legally binding agreement on how international law applies to ICTs? This question continues to split the group, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.The proposal to create a thematic group focused on international law within the future permanent mechanism comes with its own set of challenges. Some countries might try to use this group to start negotiating a binding legal instrument. Others will likely resist that idea, which could cause the group to stall. As with the other proposed thematic groups, it will also be important to sort out who gets to participate—technical experts, legal advisers, policy practitioners, and others. So far, it’s unclear how non-governmental stakeholders will be involved, and some states remain sceptical about their role. There’s also a risk that dividing the work into multiple thematic groups could fragment the conversation, leading to siloed discussions rather than a holistic approach. And for countries with fewer resources, it may be hard to keep up across multiple parallel discussions, potentially giving more influence to those with larger delegations and greater capacity.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Blonde, Hair, Adult, Female, Woman, Body Part, Neck, Clothing, Coat, Happy, Smile

Pavlina Ittelson
Executive Director, Diplo US

Capacity building
 Art, Drawing, Doodle, Crib, Furniture, Infant Bed

Cyber capacity-building has remained a cross-cutting pillar of the OEWG’s ICT-security agenda, sustaining momentum even as global tensions have made cooperation more difficult. Over the past five years, three key achievements stand out. 

First, the launch of the Global Roundtable on ICT Capacity-Building in New York in May 2024 marked a big step forward. It was the UN’s first-ever event focused solely on this topic, bringing together governments, industry, civil society, and academia to share experiences, highlight good practices, and discuss what’s still missing. The strong support for making this roundtable a regular fixture shows a real commitment to keeping everyone at the table and recognising the important role of non-state actors in strengthening capacity around the world. 

Second, countries have worked to set up practical tools to deliver on capacity-building. A key example is the Global ICT Security Cooperation and Capacity-Building Portal (GCSCP), which has received wide support as a neutral, government-led platform to coordinate capacity-building efforts. Alongside it, a needs-based capacity-building catalogue was also welcomed, provided both tools are connected with existing efforts to avoid duplication. Together, they’re meant to help match countries’ needs with available support.

Third, there’s been progress on the financing side. A voluntary UN trust fund was proposed to help finance projects and support participation from smaller delegations. It was broadly welcomed and is expected to complement other funding sources like the World Bank’s Cybersecurity Multi-Donor Trust Fund and ITU mechanisms.

What’s next? 

The OEWG’s final session needs to turn these ideas into something that works in practice. That includes agreeing on how often to hold the roundtables, how they’ll be run, and how they’ll connect to whatever permanent mechanism comes next. The goal is to make them more than just another meeting—to turn them into a space where real progress is made.

For the GCSCP and the capacity-building catalogue, a phased rollout is likely, starting with basic modules, a document repository, a Points of Contact directory, mapping of states’ needs, and a calendar of events. More sensitive features—like a norms-tracker proposed by Kuwait or an incident-reporting tool—are likely to be delayed, given concerns from some countries about data sharing and potential politicisation.

The trust fund will need clear criteria for who can access it, how it will be monitored, and how to avoid overlaps with existing efforts. There’s still uncertainty about whether it will attract enough consistent funding to meet the varied needs of developing countries.

Finally, there’s still no agreement on how the future permanent mechanism should handle capacity-building. Some countries want a dedicated working group, while others prefer to integrate it into all relevant discussions. The OEWG has built the basic framework—now the task is to finalise the details and make sure cyber capacity-building stays inclusive, focused on real needs, and able to adapt to future challenges.

 Face, Happy, Head, Person, Smile, Photography, Portrait, Dimples, Brown Hair, Hair

Salome Petit-Siemens
Master’s Student in International Security, Sciences Po

CBMS
 Weapon, Animal, Kangaroo, Mammal, Text

The launch of the Points of Contact (PoC) Directory in May 2024 stands, without a doubt, as the flagship achievement of the OEWG’s current mandate. Although the concept was first introduced in the 2021 OEWG report as one of the confidence-building measures (CBMs), the PoC Directory began to see real-world use by the end of the year 2024. Its operationalisation required active investment by the UN Secretariat, which organised the first system-wide ping test in June 2024 to verify the accuracy and responsiveness of entries. This was followed by a tabletop exercise planned for March 2025.

Another important milestone—closely tied to the PoC’s rollout—was the growing agreement on the need for a standardised communication template. At first, some states were hesitant, worried that it might make using the Directory too rigid or formal. But over time, the idea gradually gained traction. By April 2025, the Secretariat had circulated a draft template—an important step toward making communications between PoCs more consistent and efficient.

While not as visible, the globalisation of CBM practices has been arguably just as significant. Traditionally, CBM implementation was driven by regional organisations. However, 2024 witnessed a notable increase in cross-regional and multilateral initiatives, including global workshops, seminars, and training programmes. These efforts have contributed to a broader diffusion of CBM norms and practices beyond regional silos.

Yet, as we take stock of the OEWG’s progress over the past five years, one cannot ignore the gradual erosion of multistakeholder engagement in CBM discussions. As the OEWG approaches its final session, it is crucial not only to celebrate achievements but also to acknowledge areas where inclusivity and innovation have lagged behind.

The standardised template for PoC communication is likely to dominate discussions during the OEWG’s concluding session, especially given the Chair’s stated intention to include it in the final report.

The idea of integrating CBMs into the different thematic groups—something that’s part of the vision for a future permanent mechanism—was introduced in the last session. But most delegations seemed to prefer holding off on deep discussions until that mechanism is actually up and running. While spreading CBMs across different topics sounds good in theory, it also comes with risks. Moving these conversations out of their dedicated agenda item might risk politicising what has so far remained one of the OEWG’s most consensus-driven domains.

Ultimately, despite notable advancements, especially since 2024, the future of CBMs lies in their effective implementation, not necessarily future discussions at a global level. The next phase of development for the PoC Directory, in particular, hinges on actual use by states. Some key questions, first raised back in 2022, are still up in the air, including the precise scope of PoC functions. Only practice will provide answers to those questions.

 Photography, Face, Head, Person, Portrait, Happy, Smile, Body Part, Neck, Accessories, Hair

Jenne-Louise Roellinger
PhD student in International Relations, Sciences Po

Future mechanism
 Accessories, Sunglasses, Glasses, Earring, Jewelry, Text

One of the biggest achievements of the OEWG has been getting broad agreement that we need a regular, ongoing space to talk about international cybersecurity. Even with all the geopolitical tensions, countries have managed to keep talking about how a future mechanism could look. In fact, the OEWG has shown that dialogue—even between politically divided countries—is not just possible, but necessary, and increasingly seen as something that should be institutionalised.

Right now, there’s still no agreement on what this future mechanism should be. Some countries want to continue with the OEWG, while others are pushing for a Programme of Action (PoA). To find a middle ground, the Chair’s Zero Draft suggests setting up a permanent UN-backed body that would hold annual meetings and run several thematic working groups. It’s a compromise aimed at keeping everyone on board while ensuring the process keeps moving. This setup recognises the need for continuity, but its design must remain politically and procedurally neutral to secure broad support.

Still, it’s unclear whether this proposal addresses the concerns of non-governmental stakeholders, who were excluded from formal sessions, despite repeated calls for transparency and inclusion. Although intersessional consultations offered some space for engagement, many in the civil society, the private sector, and the technical community expressed concern that their expertise and operational relevance were not adequately reflected in the negotiation process. 

What’s next?

If countries can agree on a final report, and we shouldn’t rule that out—especially given recent signs of cooperation between Russia and the US at the UNGA—it will likely support the idea of a permanent institutional mechanism, though maybe without naming it outright. That would give the UNGA First Committee a chance to adopt a resolution during its 80th session later this year that formally launches the new framework. Such an outcome would mark a major step forward. We could see continued work starting in 2026 through annual meetings, thematic working groups, and inclusive consultations, as the Chair has proposed.

But if consensus doesn’t happen, the Chair might release a final report that lays out where countries agree and attaches statements from states on where they still disagree. At the moment, three main positions seem to be taking shape. One group of states backs the PoA model—basically a single-track, more inclusive process with full multistakeholder participation. Another group wants to stick with the OEWG as it is now, including the accreditation-based model for stakeholder participation agreed in 2022. A third group is pushing for a government-only, multilateral setup focused on five thematic pillars: threats, norms, international law, confidence-building, and capacity-building. These states also express strong reservations about continued stakeholder involvement in future UN cyber discussions.

These disagreements—about what the institutional setup should be, what issues to cover, and how stakeholders should be involved—highlight how politically tricky these negotiations are. And they’ll likely shape whatever comes next after the OEWG ends. If the divisions continue, we might see competing resolutions in the First Committee, which would mean a vote—and that increases the chance of fragmentation and less overall support for any future mechanism. Some delegations have already warned against this path, noting that splitting resources across multiple tracks could stretch everyone too thin. Yet in today’s fractured geopolitical landscape, the risk of a divided outcome in cyber diplomacy is not just possible—it’s increasingly likely.

 Face, Head, Person, Photography, Portrait, Happy, Smile, Accessories, Earring, Jewelry, Body Part, Neck, Adult, Female, Woman

Anastasiya Kazakova
Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow, Diplo


Stay tuned: Unpacking the OEWG’s impact with reports and events

Buckle up — we’re heading into the final phase of the OEWG! As the process wraps up, we’ll be tracking every development, publishing an in-depth report, and hosting events to reflect on the OEWG’s legacy, lessons learned, and what lies ahead. Whether you’re a long-time observer or just tuning in, there’s something for everyone.

Follow the final session live:
Our dedicated event page will feature AI-generated session reports, updated in near real-time to help you stay on top of the discussions as they unfold.

For seasoned negotiators:
We’ve also analysed the text of the Zero Draft and its Rev 1, which delegations will be negotiating during the final session — helping you navigate the proposals, sticking points, and emerging consensus.



Meme coins: Fast gains or crypto gambling?

Meme coins have exploded in the crypto market, attracting investors with promises of fast profits and viral hype. These digital tokens, often inspired by internet memes and pop culture, like Dogecoin, Pepe, Dogwifhat and most recently Trump coin, do not usually offer clear utility. Instead, their value mostly depends on social media buzz, influencer endorsements, and community enthusiasm. In 2025, meme coins remain a controversial yet dominant trend in crypto trading. 

Viral but vulnerable: the rise of meme coins 

Meme coins are typically created for humour, social engagement, or to ride viral internet trends, rather than to solve real-world problems. Despite this, they are widely known for their popularity and massive online appeal. Many investors are drawn to meme coins because of the potential for quick, large returns. 

For example, Trump-themed meme coins saw explosive growth in early 2024, with MAGA meme coin (TRUMP) briefly surpassing a $500 million market cap, despite offering no real utility and being driven largely by political hype and social media buzz. 

Analysis reports indicate that in 2024, between 40,000 and 50,000 new meme tokens were launched daily, with numbers soaring to 100,000 during viral surges. Solana tops the list of blockchains for meme coin activity, generating 17,000 to 20,000 new tokens each day. 

Chainplay’s ‘State of Memecoin 2024’ report found that over half (55.24%) of the meme coins analysed were classified as ‘malicious’. 

A chaotic blend of internet culture, greed, and adrenaline, meme coins turn crypto investing into a thrilling game where hype rules and fortunes flip in seconds.

The risks of rug pulls and scams in meme coin projects 

Beneath the humour and viral appeal, meme coins often hide serious structural risks. Many are launched by developers with little to no accountability, and most operate with centralised liquidity pools controlled by a small number of wallets. The setup allows creators or early holders to pull liquidity or dump large token amounts without warning, leading to devastating price crashes—commonly referred to as ‘rug pulls.’ 

On-chain data regularly reveals that a handful of wallets control the vast majority of supply in newly launched meme tokens, making market manipulation easy and trust almost impossible. These coins are rarely audited, lack transparency, and often have no clear roadmap or long-term utility, which leaves retail investors highly exposed. 

The combination of hype-driven demand and opaque tokenomics makes meme coins a fertile ground for fraud and manipulation, further eroding public confidence in the broader crypto ecosystem. 

A chaotic blend of internet culture, greed, and adrenaline, meme coins turn crypto investing into a thrilling game where hype rules and fortunes flip in seconds.

Gambling disguised as investing: The adrenaline rush of meme coins 

Meme coins tap into a mindset that closely resembles gambling more than traditional investing. The entire culture around them thrives on adrenaline-fueled speculation, where every price spike feels like hitting a jackpot and every drop triggers a high-stakes rollercoaster of emotions. Known as the ‘degen’ culture, traders chase quick wins fuelled by FOMO, hype, and the explosive reach of social media.

The thrill-seeking mentality turns meme coin trading into a game of chance. Investors often make impulsive decisions based on hype rather than fundamentals, hoping to catch a sudden pump before the inevitable crash. 

It is all about momentum. The volatile swings create an addictive cycle: the excitement of rapid gains pulls traders back in, despite the constant risk of losing everything.

While early insiders and large holders strategically time their moves to cash out big, most retail investors face losses, much like gamblers betting in a casino. The meme coin market, therefore, functions less like a stable investment arena and more like a high-risk gambling environment where luck and timing often outweigh knowledge and strategy. 

A chaotic blend of internet culture, greed, and adrenaline, meme coins turn crypto investing into a thrilling game where hype rules and fortunes flip in seconds.

Is profit from meme coins possible? Yes, but…

While some investors have made substantial profits from meme coins, success requires expert knowledge, thorough research, and timing. Analysing tokenomics, community growth, and on-chain data is essential before investing. Although they can be entertaining, investing in meme coins is a risky gamble. Luck remains a big key factor, so meme coins are never considered safe or long-term investments.

Meme coins vs Bitcoin: A tale of two mindsets 

Many people assume that all cryptocurrencies share the same mindset, but the truth is quite different. Interestingly, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and meme coins are based on contrasting philosophies and psychological drivers.

Bitcoin embodies a philosophy of trust through transparency, decentralisation, and long-term resilience. It appeals to those seeking stability, security, and a store of value rooted in technology and community consensus—a digital gold that invites patience and conviction. In essence, Bitcoin calls for building and holding with reason and foresight. 

Meme coins, on the other hand, thrive on the psychology of instant gratification, social identity, and collective enthusiasm. They tap into our desire for excitement, quick wins, and belonging to a viral movement. Their value is less about utility and more about shared emotion— the hope, the hype, and the adrenaline rush of catching the next big wave. Meme coins beckon with the thrill of the moment, the gamble, and the social spectacle. It makes meme coins a reflection of the speculative and impulsive side of human nature, where the line between investing and gambling blurs.

Understanding these psychological underpinnings helps explain why the two coexist in the crypto world, yet appeal to vastly different types of investors and mindsets. 

A chaotic blend of internet culture, greed, and adrenaline, meme coins turn crypto investing into a thrilling game where hype rules and fortunes flip in seconds.

How meme coins affect the reputation of the entire crypto market

The rise and fall of meme coins do not just impact individual traders—they also cast a long shadow over the credibility of the entire crypto industry. 

High-profile scams, rug pulls, and pump-and-dump schemes associated with meme tokens erode public confidence and validate sceptics’ concerns. Many retail traders enter the meme coin space with high hopes and are quickly disillusioned by manipulation and sudden losses. 

This leads to a sense of betrayal, triggering risk aversion and a generalised mistrust toward all crypto assets, even those with strong fundamentals like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Such disillusionment does not stay contained. It spills over into mainstream sentiment, deterring new investors and slowing institutional adoption. 

As more people associate crypto with gambling and scams rather than innovation and decentralisation, the market’s growth potential suffers. In this way, meme coins—though intended as jokes—could have serious consequences for the future of blockchain credibility. 

 Gold, Face, Head, Person

Trading thrills or ticking time bomb?

Meme coins may offer flashes of fortune, but their deeper role in the crypto ecosystem raises a provocative question: are they reshaping finance or just distorting it? In a market where jokes move millions and speculation overrides substance, the real gamble may not just be financial—it could be philosophical. 

Are we embracing innovation, or playing a dangerous game with digital dice? In the end, meme coins are not just a bet on price—they are a reflection of what kind of future we want to build in crypto. Is it sustainable value, or just viral chaos? The roulette wheel is still spinning. 

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Cognitive offloading and the future of the mind in the AI age

AI reshapes work and learning

The rapid advancement of AI is bringing to light a range of emerging phenomena within contemporary human societies.

The integration of AI-driven tools into a broad spectrum of professional tasks has proven beneficial in many respects, particularly in terms of alleviating the cognitive and physical burdens traditionally placed on human labour.

By automating routine processes and enhancing decision-making capabilities, AI has the potential to significantly improve efficiency and productivity across various sectors.

In response to these accelerating technological changes, a growing number of nations are prioritising the integration of AI technologies into their education systems to ensure students are prepared for future societal and workforce transformations.

China advances AI education for youth

China has released two landmark policy documents aimed at integrating AI education systematically into the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools.

The initiative not only reflects the country’s long-term strategic vision for educational transformation but also seeks to position China at the forefront of global AI literacy and talent development.

chinese flag with the city of shanghai in the background and digital letters ai somewhere over the flag

The two guidelines, formally titled the Guidelines for AI General Education in Primary and Secondary Schools and the Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in Primary and Secondary Schools, represent a scientific and systemic approach to cultivating AI competencies among school-aged children.

Their release marks a milestone in the development of a tiered, progressive AI education system, with carefully delineated age-appropriate objectives and ethical safeguards for both students and educators.

The USA expands AI learning in schools

In April, the US government outlined a structured national policy to integrate AI literacy into every stage of the education system.

By creating a dedicated federal task force, the administration intends to coordinate efforts across departments to promote early and equitable access to AI education.

Instead of isolating AI instruction within specialised fields, the initiative seeks to embed AI concepts across all learning pathways—from primary education to lifelong learning.

The plan includes the creation of a nationwide AI challenge to inspire innovation among students and educators, showcasing how AI can address real-world problems.

The policy also prioritises training teachers to understand and use AI tools, instead of relying solely on traditional teaching methods. It supports professional development so educators can incorporate AI into their lessons and reduce administrative burdens.

The strategy encourages public-private partnerships, using industry expertise and existing federal resources to make AI teaching materials widely accessible.

European Commission supports safe AI use

As AI becomes more common in classrooms around the globe, educators must understand not only how to use it effectively but also how to apply it ethically.

Rather than introducing AI tools without guidance or reflection, the European Commission has provided ethical guidelines to help teachers use AI and data responsibly in education.

european union regulates ai

Published in 2022 and developed with input from educators and AI experts, the EU guidelines are intended primarily for primary and secondary teachers who have little or no prior experience with AI.

Instead of focusing on technical complexity, the guidelines aim to raise awareness about how AI can support teaching and learning, highlight the risks involved, and promote ethical decision-making.

The guidelines explain how AI can be used in schools, encourage safe and informed use by both teachers and students, and help educators consider the ethical foundations of any digital tools they adopt.

Rather than relying on unexamined technology, they support thoughtful implementation by offering practical questions and advice for adapting AI to various educational goals.

AI tools may undermine human thinking

However, technological augmentation is not without drawbacks. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for job displacement, increased dependency on digital systems, and the gradual erosion of certain human skills.

As such, while AI offers promising opportunities for enhancing the modern workplace, it simultaneously introduces complex challenges that must be critically examined and responsibly addressed.

One significant challenge that must be addressed in the context of increasing reliance on AI is the phenomenon known as cognitive offloading. But what exactly does this term entail?

What happens when we offload thinking?

Cognitive offloading refers to the practice of using physical actions or external tools to modify the information processing demands of a task, with the aim of reducing the cognitive load on an individual.

In essence, it involves transferring certain mental functions—such as memory, calculation, or decision-making—to outside resources like digital devices, written notes, or structured frameworks.

digital brain

While this strategy can enhance efficiency and performance, it also raises concerns about long-term cognitive development, dependency on technological aids, and the potential degradation of innate mental capacities.

How AI may be weakening critical thinking

A study, led by Dr Michael Gerlich, Head of the Centre for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability at SBS Swiss Business School, published in the journal Societies raises serious concerns about the cognitive consequences of AI augmentation in various aspects of life.

The study suggests that frequent use of AI tools may be weakening individuals’ capacity for critical thinking, a skill considered fundamental to independent reasoning, problem-solving, and informed decision-making.

More specifically, Dr Gerlich adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative survey data from 666 participants with qualitative interviews involving 50 individuals.

Participants were drawn from diverse age groups and educational backgrounds and were assessed on their frequency of AI tool use, their tendency to offload cognitive tasks, and their critical thinking performance.

The study employed both self-reported and performance-based measures of critical thinking, alongside statistical analyses and machine learning models, such as random forest regression, to identify key factors influencing cognitive performance.

Younger users, who rely more on AI, think less critically

The findings revealed a strong negative correlation between frequent AI use and critical thinking abilities. Individuals who reported heavy reliance on AI tools—whether for quick answers, summarised explanations, or algorithmic recommendations—scored lower on assessments of critical thinking.

The effect was particularly pronounced among younger users aged 17 to 25, who reported the highest levels of cognitive offloading and showed the weakest performance in critical thinking tasks.

In contrast, older participants (aged 46 and above) demonstrated stronger critical thinking skills and were less inclined to delegate mental effort to AI.

Higher education strengthens critical thinking

The data also indicated that educational attainment served as a protective factor: those with higher education levels consistently exhibited more robust critical thinking abilities, regardless of their AI usage levels.

These findings suggest that formal education may equip individuals with better tools for critically engaging with digital information rather than uncritically accepting AI-generated responses.

Now, we must understand that while the study does not establish direct causation, the strength of the correlations and the consistency across quantitative and qualitative data suggest that AI usage may indeed be contributing to a gradual decline in cognitive independence.

However, in his study, Gerlich also notes the possibility of reverse causality—individuals with weaker critical thinking skills may be more inclined to rely on AI tools in the first place.

Offloading also reduces information retention

While cognitive offloading can enhance immediate task performance, it often comes at the cost of reduced long-term memory retention, as other studies show.

The trade-off has been most prominently illustrated in experimental tasks such as the Pattern Copy Task, where participants tasked with reproducing a pattern typically choose to repeatedly refer to the original rather than commit it to memory.

Even when such behaviours introduce additional time or effort (e.g., physically moving between stations), the majority of participants opt to offload, suggesting a strong preference for minimising cognitive strain.

These findings underscore the human tendency to prioritise efficiency over internalisation, especially under conditions of high cognitive demand.

The tendency to offload raises crucial questions about the cognitive and educational consequences of extended reliance on external aids. On the one hand, offloading can free up mental resources, allowing individuals to focus on higher-order problem-solving or multitasking.

On the other hand, it may foster a kind of cognitive dependency, weakening internal memory traces and diminishing opportunities for deep engagement with information.

Within the framework, cognitive offloading is not a failure of memory or attention but a reconfiguration of cognitive architecture—a process that may be adaptive rather than detrimental.

However, the perspective remains controversial, especially in light of findings that frequent offloading can impair retention, transfer of learning, and critical thinking, as Gerlich’s study argues.

If students, for example, continually rely on digital devices to recall facts or solve problems, they may fail to develop the robust mental models necessary for flexible reasoning and conceptual understanding.

The mind may extend beyond the brain

The tension has also sparked debate among cognitive scientists and philosophers, particularly in light of the extended mind hypothesis.

Contrary to the traditional view that cognition is confined to the brain, the extended mind theory argues that cognitive processes often rely on, and are distributed across, tools, environments, and social structures.

digital brain spin

As digital technologies become increasingly embedded in daily life, this hypothesis raises profound questions about human identity, cognition, and agency.

At the core of the extended mind thesis lies a deceptively simple question: Where does the mind stop, and the rest of the world begin?

Drawing an analogy to prosthetics—external objects that functionally become part of the body—Clark and Chalmers argue that cognitive tools such as notebooks, smartphones, and sketchpads can become integrated components of our mental system.

These tools do not merely support cognition; they constitute it when used in a seamless, functionally integrated manner. This conceptual shift has redefined thinking not as a brain-bound process but as a dynamic interaction between mind, body, and world.

Balancing AI and human intelligence

In conclusion, cognitive offloading represents a powerful mechanism of modern cognition, one that allows individuals to adapt to complex environments by distributing mental load.

However, its long-term effects on memory, learning, and problem-solving remain a subject of active investigation. Rather than treating offloading as inherently beneficial or harmful, future research and practice should seek to balance its use, leveraging its strengths while mitigating its costs.

Human VS Ai Background Brain and heart hd background 1024x576 1

Ultimately, we -as educators, policymakers, and technologists- have to shape the future of learning, work and confront a central tension: how to harness the benefits of AI without compromising the very faculties—critical thought, memory, and independent judgment—that define human intelligence.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

The rise of AI in Hollywood, gaming, and music

It feels like just yesterday that the internet was buzzing over the first renditions of OpenAI’s DALL·E tool, with millions competing to craft the funniest, weirdest prompts and sharing the results across social media. The sentiment was clear: the public was fascinated by the creative potential of this new technology.

But beneath the laughter and viral memes was a quieter, more uneasy question: what happens when AI not only generates quirky artwork, but begins to reshape our daily lives—both online and off? As it turns out, that process was already underway behind the scenes—and we were none the wiser.

AI in action: How the entertainment industry is using it today

Three years later, we have reached a point where AI’s influence seems to have passed the point of no return. The entertainment industry was among the first to embrace this technology, and starting with the 2025 Academy Awards, films that incorporate AI are now eligible for Oscar nominations.

That decision has been met with mixed reactions, to put it lightly. While some have praised the industry’s eagerness to explore new technological frontiers, others have claimed that AI greatly diminishes the human contribution to the art of filmmaking and therefore takes away the essence of the seventh art form.

The first wave of AI-enhanced storytelling

One recent example is the film The Brutalist, in which AI was used to refine Adrien Brody’s Hungarian dialogue to sound more authentic—a move that sparked both technical admiration and creative scepticism.

With AI now embedded in everything from voiceovers to entire digital actors, we are only beginning to confront what it truly means when creativity is no longer exclusively human.

Academy Awards 2025, Adrien Brody, The Brutalist, The Oscars, Best Actor
Adrien Brody’s Hungarian dialogue in ‘The Brutalist’ was subject to generative AI to make it sound more authentic. Screenshot / YouTube/ Oscars

Setting the stage: AI in the spotlight

The first major big-screen resurrection occurred in 1994’s The Crow, where Brandon Lee’s sudden passing mid-production forced the studio to rely on body doubles, digital effects, and existing footage to complete his scenes. However, it was not until 2016 that audiences witnessed the first fully digital revival.

In Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Peter Cushing’s character was brought back to life using a combination of CGI, motion capture, and a facial stand-in. Although primarily reliant on traditional VFX, the project paved the way for future use of deepfakes and AI-assisted performance recreation across movies, TV shows, and video games.

Afterward, some speculated that studios tied to Peter Cushing’s legacy—such as Tyburn Film Productions—could pursue legal action against Disney for reviving his likeness without direct approval. While no lawsuit was filed, questions were raised about who owns a performer’s digital identity after death.

The digital Jedi: How AI helped recreate Luke Skywalker

Fate would have it that AI’s grand debut would take place in a galaxy far, far away—with the surprise appearance of Luke Skywalker in the Season 2 finale of The Mandalorian (spoiler alert). The moment thrilled fans and marked a turning point for the franchise—but it was more than just fan service.

Here’s the twist: Mark Hamill did not record any new voice lines. Instead, actor Max Lloyd-Jones performed the physical role, while Hamill’s de-aged voice was recreated with the help of Respeecher, a Ukrainian company specialising in AI-driven speech synthesis.

Impressed by their work, Disney turned to Respeecher once again—this time to recreate James Earl Jones’s iconic Darth Vader voice for the Obi-Wan Kenobi miniseries. Using archival recordings that Jones signed over for AI use, the system synthesised new dialogue that perfectly matched the intonation and timbre of his original trilogy performances.

Darth Vader, James Earl Jones, Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Respeecher, AI voice synthesizer
Screenshot / YouTube / Star Wars

AI in moviemaking: Preserving legacy or crossing a line?

The use of AI to preserve and extend the voices of legendary actors has been met with a mix of admiration and unease. While many have praised the seamless execution and respect shown toward the legacy of both Hamill and Jones, others have raised concerns about consent, creative authenticity, and the long-term implications of allowing AI to perform in place of humans.

In both cases, the actors were directly involved or gave explicit approval, but these high-profile examples may be setting a precedent for a future where that level of control is not guaranteed.

A notable case that drew backlash was the planned use of a fully CGI-generated James Dean in the unreleased film Finding Jack, decades after his death. Critics and fellow actors have voiced strong opposition, arguing that bringing back a performer without their consent reduces them to a brand or asset, rather than honouring them as an artist.

AI in Hollywood: Actors made redundant?

What further heightened concerns among working actors was the launch of Promise, a new Hollywood studio built entirely around generative AI. Backed by wealthy investors, Promise is betting big on Muse—a GenAI tool designed to produce high-quality films and TV series at a fraction of the cost and time required for traditional Hollywood productions.

Filmmaking is a business, after all—and with production budgets ballooning year after year, AI-powered entertainment sounds like a dream come true for profit-driven studios.

Meta’s recent collaboration with Blumhouse Productions on Movie Gen only adds fuel to the fire, signalling that major players are eager to explore a future where storytelling may be driven as much by algorithms as by authentic artistry.

AI in gaming: Automation or artistic collapse?

Speaking of entertainment businesses, we cannot ignore the world’s most popular entertainment medium: gaming. While the pandemic triggered a massive boom in game development and player engagement, the momentum was short-lived.

As profits began to slump in the years that followed, the industry was hit by a wave of layoffs, prompting widespread internal restructuring and forcing publishers to rethink their business models entirely. In hopes of cost-cutting, AAA companies had their eye on AI as their one saving grace.

Nvidia developing AI chips, along with Ubisoft and EA investing in AI and machine learning, have sent clear signals to the industry: automation is no longer just a backend tool—it is a front-facing strategy.

With AI-assisted NPC behaviour and AI voice acting, game development is shifting toward faster, cheaper, and potentially less human-driven production. In response, game developers have become concerned about their future in the industry, and actors are less inclined to sign off their rights for future projects.

AI voice acting in video games

In an attempt to compete with wealthier studios, even indie developers have turned to GenAI to replicate the voices of celebrity voice actors. Tools like ElevenLabs and Altered Studio offer a seemingly straightforward way to get high-quality talent—but if only it were that simple.

Copyright laws and concerns over authenticity remain two of the strongest barriers to the widespread adoption of AI-generated voices—especially as many consumers still view the technology as a crutch rather than a creative tool for game developers.

The legal landscape around AI-generated voices remains murky. In many places, the rights to a person’s voice—or its synthetic clone—are poorly defined, creating loopholes developers can exploit.

AI voice cloning challenges legal boundaries in gaming

The legal ambiguity has fuelled a backlash from voice actors, who argue that their performances are being mimicked without consent or pay. SAG-AFTRA and others began pushing for tighter legal protections in 2023.

A notable flashpoint came in 2025, when Epic Games faced criticism for using an AI-generated Darth Vader voice in Fortnite. SAG-AFTRA filed a formal complaint, citing licensing concerns and a lack of actor involvement.

Not all uses have been controversial. CD Projekt Red recreated the voice of the late Miłogost Reczek in Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty—with his family’s blessing—setting a respectful precedent for the ethical use of AI.

How AI is changing music production and artist Identity

AI is rapidly reshaping music production, with a recent survey showing that nearly 25% of producers are already integrating AI tools into their creative workflows. This shift reflects a growing trend in how technology is influencing composition, mixing, and even vocal performance.

Artists like Imogen Heap are embracing the change with projects like Mogen, an AI version of herself that can create music and interact with fans—blurring the line between human creativity and digital innovation.

Major labels are also experimenting: Universal Music has recently used AI to reimagine Brenda Lee’s 1958 classic in Spanish, preserving the spirit of the original while expanding its cultural reach.

AI and the future of entertainment

As AI becomes more embedded in entertainment, the line between innovation and exploitation grows thinner. What once felt like science fiction is now reshaping the way stories are told—and who gets to tell them.

Whether AI becomes a tool for creative expansion or a threat to human artistry will depend on how the industry and audiences choose to engage with it in the years ahead. As in any business, consumers vote with their wallets, and only time will tell whether AI and authenticity can truly go hand-in-hand.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

The rise of tech giants in healthcare: How AI is reshaping life sciences

Silicon Valley targets health

The intersection of technology and healthcare is rapidly evolving, fuelled by advancements in ΑΙ and driven by major tech companies that are expanding their reach into the life sciences sector.

Once primarily known for consumer electronics or search engines, companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and IBM are now playing an increasingly central role in transforming the medical field.

These companies, often referred to as ‘Big Tech’, are pushing the boundaries of what was once considered science fiction, using AI to innovate across multiple aspects of healthcare, including diagnostics, treatment, drug development, clinical trials, and patient care.

silicon valley tech companies

AI becomes doctors’ new tool

At the core of this revolution is AI. Over the past decade, AI has evolved from a theoretical tool to a practical and transformative force within healthcare.

Companies are developing advanced machine learning algorithms, cognitive computing models, and AI-powered systems capable of matching—and sometimes surpassing—human capabilities in diagnosing and treating diseases.

AI is also reshaping many aspects of healthcare, from early disease detection to personalised treatments and even drug discovery. This shift is creating a future where AI plays a significant role in diagnosing diseases, developing treatment plans, and improving patient outcomes at scale.

One of the most significant contributions of AI is in diagnostics. Google Health and its subsidiary DeepMind are prime examples of how AI can be used to outperform human experts in certain medical tasks.

For instance, DeepMind’s AI tools have demonstrated the ability to diagnose conditions like breast cancer and lung disease with remarkable accuracy, surpassing the abilities of human radiologists in some cases.

google deepmind AI progress Demis Hassabis

Similarly, Philips has filed patents for AI systems capable of detecting neurodegenerative diseases and tracking disease progression using heart activity and motion sensors.

From diagnosis to documentation

These breakthroughs represent only a small part of how AI is revolutionising diagnostics by improving accuracy, reducing time to diagnosis, and potentially saving lives.

In addition to AI’s diagnostic capabilities, its impact extends to medical documentation, an often-overlooked area that affects clinician efficiency.

Traditionally, doctors spend a significant amount of time on paperwork, reducing the time they can spend with patients.

However, AI companies like Augmedix, DeepScribe, and Nabla are addressing this problem by offering solutions that generate clinical notes directly from doctor-patient conversations.

AI doctor

These platforms integrate with electronic health record (EHR) systems and automate the note-taking process, which reduces administrative workload and frees up clinicians to focus on patient care.

Augmedix, for example, claims to save up to an hour per day for clinicians, while DeepScribe’s AI technology is reportedly more accurate than even GPT-4 for clinical documentation.

Nabla takes this further by offering AI-driven chatbots and decision support tools that enhance clinical workflows and reduce physician burnout.

Portable ultrasounds powered by AI

AI is also transforming medical imaging, a field traditionally dependent on expensive, bulky equipment that requires specialised training.

Innovators like Butterfly Network are developing portable, AI-powered ultrasound devices that can provide diagnostic capabilities at a fraction of the cost of traditional equipment. These devices offer greater accessibility, particularly in regions with limited access to medical imaging technology.

The ability to perform ultrasounds and MRIs in remote areas, using portable devices powered by AI, is democratising healthcare and enabling better diagnostic capabilities in underserved regions.

An advanced drug discovery

In the realm of drug discovery and treatment personalisation, AI is making significant strides. Companies like IBM Watson are at the forefront of using AI to personalise treatment plans by analysing vast amounts of patient data, including medical histories, genetic information, and lifestyle factors.

IBM Watson has been particularly instrumental in the field of oncology, where it assists physicians by recommending tailored cancer treatment protocols.

treatment costs.

A capability like this is made possible by the vast amounts of medical data Watson processes to identify the best treatment options for individual patients, ensuring that therapies are more effective by considering each patient’s unique characteristics.

Smart automation in healthcare

Furthermore, AI is streamlining administrative tasks within healthcare systems, which often burden healthcare providers with repetitive, time-consuming tasks like appointment scheduling, records management, and insurance verification.

By automating these tasks, AI allows healthcare providers to focus more on delivering high-quality care to patients.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), for example, is leveraging its cloud platform to develop machine learning tools that assist healthcare providers in making more effective clinical decisions while improving operational efficiency.

It includes using AI to enhance clinical decision-making, predict patient outcomes, and manage the growing volume of patient data that healthcare systems must process.

Startups and giants drive the healthcare race

Alongside the tech giants, AI-driven startups are also playing a pivotal role in healthcare innovation. Tempus, for example, is integrating genomic sequencing with AI to provide physicians with actionable insights that improve patient outcomes, particularly in cancer treatment.

The fusion of data from multiple sources is enhancing the precision and effectiveness of medical decisions. Zebra Medical Vision, another AI-driven company, is using AI to analyse medical imaging data and detect a wide range of conditions, from liver disease to breast cancer.

Zebra’s AI algorithms are designed to identify conditions often before symptoms even appear, which greatly improves the chances of successful treatment through early detection.

Tech giants are deeply embedded in the healthcare ecosystem, using their advanced capabilities in cloud computing, AI, and data analytics to reshape the industry.

partners handshake ai companies

Microsoft, for example, has made significant strides in AI for accessibility, focusing on creating healthcare solutions that empower individuals with disabilities. Their work is helping to make healthcare more inclusive and accessible for a broader population.

Amazon’s AWS cloud platform is another example of how Big Tech is leveraging its infrastructure to develop machine learning tools that support healthcare providers in delivering more effective care.

M&A meets medicine

In addition to developing their own AI tools, these tech giants have made several high-profile acquisitions to accelerate their healthcare strategies.

Google’s acquisition of Fitbit, Amazon’s purchase of PillPack and One Medical, and Microsoft’s $19.7 billion acquisition of Nuance are all clear examples of how Big Tech is seeking to integrate AI into every aspect of the healthcare value chain, from drug discovery to clinical delivery.

These acquisitions and partnerships also enable tech giants to tap into new areas of the healthcare market and provide more comprehensive, end-to-end solutions to healthcare providers and patients alike.

Smart devices empower health

Consumer health technologies have also surged in popularity, thanks to the broader trend of digital health and wellness tools. Fitness trackers, smartwatches, and mobile health apps allow users to monitor everything from heart rates to sleep quality.

Devices like the Apple Watch and Google’s Fitbit collect health data continuously, providing users with personalised insights into their well-being.

seoul 05 02 2022 male hand with two apple watches with pink and gray strap on white background

Instead of being isolated within individual devices, the data is increasingly being integrated into broader healthcare systems, enabling doctors and other healthcare providers to have a more complete view of a patient’s health.

This integration has also supported the growth of telehealth services, with millions of people now opting for virtual consultations powered by Big Tech infrastructure and AI-powered triage tools.

Chinese hospitals embrace generative AI

The rise of generative AI is also transforming healthcare, particularly in countries like China, where technology is advancing rapidly. Once considered a distant ambition, the use of generative AI in healthcare is now being implemented at scale.

The technology is being used to manage massive drug libraries, assist with complex diagnoses, and replicate expert reasoning processes, which helps doctors make more informed decisions.

At Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ant Group’s medical model has impressed staff by offering diagnostic suggestions and replicating expert reasoning, streamlining consultations without replacing human doctors.

Our choice in a tech-driven world

As AI continues to evolve, tech giants are likely to continue disrupting the healthcare industry while also collaborating with traditional healthcare providers.

While some traditional life sciences companies may feel threatened by the rise of Big Tech in healthcare, those that embrace AI and form partnerships with tech companies will likely be better positioned for success.

The convergence of AI and healthcare is already reshaping the future of medicine, and traditional healthcare players must adapt or risk being left behind.

generate an image of an artificial intelligence head in front of a human head and digital codes in the background reproducing all the human heads inputs and psychological reactions

Despite the tremendous momentum, there are challenges that need to be addressed. Data privacy, regulatory concerns, and the growing dominance of Big Tech in healthcare remain significant hurdles.

If these challenges are addressed responsibly, however, the integration of AI into healthcare could modernise care delivery on a global scale.

Rather than replacing doctors, the goal is to empower them with better tools, insights, and outcomes. The future of healthcare is one where technology and human expertise work in tandem, enhancing the patient experience and improving overall health outcomes.

As human beings, we must understand that the integration of technology across multiple sectors is a double-edged sword. It can either benefit us and help build better future societies, or mark the beginning of our downfall— but in the end, the choice will always be ours.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Bitcoin’s political puppeteers: From code to clout

Bitcoin was once seen as the cornerstone of a financial utopia — immune to political control, free from traditional banking systems, and governed solely by blockchain protocols. For a while, that dream felt real — and we lived it.

Today, things have changed. The whole crypto market has become increasingly sensitive to political influence, the actions of crypto whales, and rising global tensions.

While financial markets are expected to respond to global developments, Bitcoin’s price volatility has started to reflect something more concerning. Instead of being driven primarily by innovation or organic adoption, BTC price movements are increasingly shaped by media exposure and the strategic trades by influential figures.

In this shifting ecosystem, manipulation and concentrated influence are gradually undermining the core ideals of decentralisation and financial autonomy. Is this really the revolution we were promised? 

Trump’s family growing grip on the crypto market

Donald Trump has not always been a crypto fan. Once critical of Bitcoin, he is now positioning himself as a pro-crypto leader. It is a shift driven by opportunity — not just political, but financial. Trump understands that supporting digital assets could help the USA become a global crypto hub. But it also aligns perfectly with his reputation as a businessman first, politician second. 

The issue lies in the outsized influence his words now have in the crypto space. A single post on social media like X or Truth can send Bitcoin’s price up or down. Whether he is praising crypto or denying personal gain, the market reacts instantly. 

His sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are also active — often promoting the narrative that banks are obsolete and crypto is the future. They frequently make suggestive remarks about market trends. At times, they even imply where investors should put their money — all while staying within legal limits. Still, this pattern subtly steers market sentiment, raising concerns about coordinated influence and the deliberate shaping of market trends.

The launch of politically themed meme coins like $TRUMP and $MELANIA added fuel to the fire. These coins sparked massive rallies — and equally dramatic crashes. In fact, Bitcoin’s all-time high was followed by a sharp fall, partially triggered by the hype and eventual dump around these tokens.

Investigations now suggest insider activity. One wallet made $39 million in just 12 hours after buying $MELANIA before it was even announced. Meanwhile, $TRUMP coin insiders moved $4.6 million in USDC right before the major token unlock.

While technically legal, these actions raise serious ethical concerns. Also, 80% of its supply is controlled by insiders — including Donald Trump himself. It points to a clear pattern of influence, where strategic actions are being used to shape market movements and drive profits for a select few.

What we are seeing is the unprecedented impact of a single family. The combination of political clout and financial ambition is reshaping crypto sentiment, and Bitcoin is reflecting the shift as well. It is no longer subtle — and it is certainly troubling. Crypto is supposed to be free from central influence — yet right now, it bends under the weight of a single name.

Whales and the Michael Saylor effect 

Beyond politics, crypto whales are playing their part in manipulating Bitcoin’s movements. They can cause major price swings by buying or selling in bulk. 

One of the most influential is Michael Saylor, co-founder of Strategy. His company holds approximately 555,450 BTC and is still buying. Every time he announces a new purchase, Bitcoin prices spike. Traders monitor his every move — his tweets are treated like trading signals. 

But Saylor has bigger plans. He once said he could become a Bitcoin bank — a statement that sparked backlash. What is particularly striking is that a businessman who has supported Bitcoin’s decentralised nature from the beginning is now acting in ways that appear to contradict it. Bitcoin was designed to avoid central control — not to be dominated by one player, no matter how bullish. When too much BTC ends up concentrated in one place, the autonomous promise begins to crack. 

Market trust is shifting from code to individuals — and that is risky.

Global tensions as a Bitcoin barometer

Bitcoin does not just respond to tweets anymore. Global tensions have made it a geopolitical asset — a barometer of financial anxiety. 

Recent US tariffs, particularly on Chinese mining equipment, have raised mining costs. Tariffs also disrupted the supply chain for mining rigs, slowing down expansion and affecting hash rates.

At the same time, when the US exempted tech products like iPhones and laptops from tariffs, Bitcoin surged — reaching $86,000. It shows how trade policy and tech pressure are now directly linked to Bitcoin price action. 

Yet, there always seems to be a push-and-pull dynamic at play — not necessarily coordinated, but clearly driven by short-term momentum and opportunistic interests.

It is where irony lies — Bitcoin was built to be apolitical. But today, it is tightly tied to global politics. Its price now swings in response to elections, sanctions, and international conflicts — the very forces it was meant to bypass. What was once a decentralised alternative to traditional finance is becoming a mirror of the same systems it sought to disrupt. 

Bitcoin: from decentralised dream to politically-driven reality 

Bitcoin is no longer moved by natural market fundamentals alone. It dances to the tune of political tweets, whale decisions, and global conflicts. A decentralised dream now faces a centralised reality.

It all started when governments and financial institutions began taking an active interest in Bitcoin and the broader cryptocurrency market. While mainstream adoption was essential for legitimising digital assets, that level of attention came with strings attached — most notably, external influence.

What was once an alternative movement powered by decentralised ideals has gradually attracted the gaze of political leaders, regulators, and corporate giants. The tale of two sides of the sword: the promise of legitimacy, tempered by the risk of losing the system’s independence. 

In this environment, the absence of central control and the self-governing nature of the system are becoming increasingly symbolic. The market reacts not just to algorithms or adoption metrics, but also to the opinions and actions of a powerful few — raising concerns about market manipulation, unequal access, and the long-term health of crypto’s founding vision. Is that really a non-centralised structure?

Crypto was meant to free us from financial gatekeepers. But if Bitcoin can be shaken by one man’s post on a social network, we must ask: can it still considered free? 

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Technological inventions blurring the line between reality and fiction

The rapid progress of AI over the past few years has unsettled the global population, reaching a point where it is extremely difficult to say with certainty whether certain content has been created by AI or not.

We are confronted with this phenomenon through photos, video and audio recordings that can easily confuse us and force us to question our perception of reality.

Digital twins are being used by scammers in the crypto space to impersonate influencers and execute fraudulent schemes.

And while the public often focuses on deepfakes, at the same time we are witnessing inventions and patents emerging around the world that deserve admiration, but also spark important reflection: are we nearing, or have we already crossed, the ethical red line?

For these and many other reasons, in a world where the visual and functional differences between science fiction and reality have almost disappeared, the latest inventions come as a shock.

We are now at a point where we are facing technologies that force us to redefine what we mean by the word ‘reality’.

Neuralink: Crossing the boundary between brain and machine

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rare neurological disease caused by damage and degeneration of motor neurons—nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. This damage disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses to muscles via peripheral nerves, leading to a progressive loss of muscle function.

However, the Neuralink chip, developed by Elon Musk’s company, has helped one patient type with their mind and speak using their voice. This breakthrough opens the door to a new form of communication where thoughts become direct interactions.

Liquid robot from South Korea

Scenes from sci-fi films are becoming reality, and in this case (thankfully), a liquid robot has a noble purpose—to assist in rescue missions and be applied in medicine.

Currently in the early prototype stage, it has been demonstrated in labs through a collaboration between MIT and Korean research institutes.

ULS exoskeleton as support for elderly care

Healthcare workers and caregivers in China have had their work greatly simplified thanks to the ULS Robotics exoskeleton, weighing only five kilograms but enabling users to lift up to 30 kilograms.

This represents a leap forward in caring for people with limited mobility, while also increasing safety and efficiency. Commercial prototypes have been tested in hospitals and industrial environments.

https://twitter.com/ulsrobotics/status/1317426742168940545

Agrorobots: Autonomous crop spraying

Another example from China that has been in use for several years. Robots equipped with AI perform precise crop spraying. The system analyses pests and targets them without the need for human presence, reducing potential health risks.

The application has become standardised, with expectations for further expansion and improvement in the near future.

The stretchable battery of the future

Researchers in Sweden have developed a flexible battery that can double in length without losing energy, making it ideal for wearable technologies.

Although not yet commercially available, it has been covered in scientific journals. The aim is for it to become a key component in bendable devices, smart clothing and medical implants.

Volonaut Airbike: A sci-fi vehicle takes off

When it comes to innovation, the Volonaut Airbike hits the mark perfectly. Designed to resemble a single-seat speeder bike from Star Wars, it represents a giant leap toward personal air travel.

Functional prototypes exist, but testing remains limited due to high production costs and regulatory hurdles related to traffic laws. Nevertheless, the Polish company behind it remains committed to this idea, and it will be exciting to follow its progress.

NEO robot: The humanoid household assistant

A Norwegian company has been developing a humanoid robot capable of performing household tasks, including gardening chores like collecting and bagging leaves or grass.

These are among the first serious steps toward domestic humanoid assistants. Currently functioning in demo mode, the robot has received backing from OpenAI.

Lenovo Yoga Solar: The laptop that loves sunlight

If you find yourself without a charger but with access to direct sunlight, this laptop will do everything it can to keep you powered. Using solar energy, 20 minutes of charging in sunlight provides around one hour of video playback.

Perfect for ecologists and digital nomads. Although not yet commercially available, it has been showcased at several major tech expos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px1iEW600Pk

What comes next: The need for smart regulation

As technology races ahead, regulation must catch up. From neurotech to autonomous robots, each innovation raises new questions about privacy, accountability, and ethics.

Governments and tech developers alike must collaborate to ensure that these inventions remain tools for good, not risks to society.

So, what is real and what is generated?

This question will only become harder to answer as time goes on. But on the other hand, if the technological revolution continues to head in a useful and positive direction, perhaps there is little to fear.

The true dilemma in this era of rapid innovation may not be about the tools themselves, but about the fundamental question: Is technology shaping us, or do we still shape it?

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!